I suppose it's about context. In comparison to his Dad and even his brother he is more 'ordinary' (I'm not sure how you define ordinary but in this instance I think we can guess). Whilst still being born into privilege he hasn't got the same pressure and expectation of conformity they have. He arguably has been seen more as 'fair game' for the gutter press and his actions, good and bad, have been scrutinised. Many of the headlines are for things that are 'ordinary'.

All things considered I don't think he comes across as that bad a guy. He was no more in control of the life he was born into than you or I were.

He does indeed seem to be not that bad a guy, its to the detriment of the cause of republicanism that you see folk having a go at the individuals, when the real target is and should be the concept of inherited position and status that they embody .... not the wealth, any of it they can prove is theirs and which doesn't rightfully belong to the citizens of the UK they are welcome to.

As for any of them having control of the circumstances of their birth. No they don't, but what they do control is what happens later, I laugh my arse off when they start bitching about 'their lot' and how tough it is being a royal .... screw that, they could renounce the titles and everything that goes with them at the stroke of a pen, but not one of them has ever done it apart from one notable exception and that had nothing to do with him being against being 'royal'

At their worst the Windsors genuinely believe that an entitlement to political position ( head of state ) deference and high social status which must be acknowledged by those beneath them is their birth right .... the queen and prince Philip almost certainly believe that to be true. At best the whole family look on the institution of royalty as the family business and they will do anything and everything possible to ensure nothing endangers it.

They wrap it up in words like 'duty' and 'service' ...... but we republicans know the real truth